UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

In the Realm of Doubts and Discrepancies, Innocence Prevails: Supreme Court Acquits In Child Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court today overturned the High Court’s conviction of Kalinga in the 2002 murder case of a child, citing significant inconsistencies in circumstantial evidence and the unreliability of an extra-judicial confession.

The apex court critically examined the evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions in criminal cases, emphasizing the necessity of a coherent and conclusive chain of circumstances to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case involved the mysterious death of 2.5-year-old Hrithik in 2002. Kalinga, the appellant, faced conviction by the High Court based on an extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence, despite being acquitted by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court was tasked with evaluating the consistency and reliability of the confession and the overall circumstantial evidence.

Extra-Judicial Confession: The court noted significant discrepancies in the testimony of PW-1, the father of the deceased, concerning the confession. The absence of key witnesses during the confession raised doubts about its existence and credibility.

Circumstantial Evidence: The apex court identified several discrepancies in the chain of circumstances, including uncertainties about the identity of the deceased’s body, arrest procedures, and the theory of the body’s recovery. These inconsistencies led the court to deem the circumstantial evidence insufficient to conclusively establish guilt.

Reversal of Acquittal Standards: Highlighting the principles governing the reversal of acquittals, the Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s approach in re-appreciating evidence without identifying any perversity or illegality in the Trial Court’s order, reaffirming the reinforced presumption of innocence after acquittal.

Decision: Overruling the High Court’s judgment and reinstating the Trial Court’s acquittal, the Supreme Court acquitted Kalinga of all charges. The judgment underscored the importance of resolving doubts in favor of the accused and adhering to the principle of reasonable doubt in criminal jurisprudence.

Date of Decision: February 20, 2024

Kalinga @ Kushal Vs. State of Karnataka by Police Inspector Hubli

 

 

Latest Legal News